M11 Jpeg output

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Genoweffa:

maybe a bit off tangent....

how large are typical/average DNG and JPEG(by camera) files from M11?

Full size DNG has between 65 and 75 MB. There might be some smaller ones and some bigger ones as the exception. But when you think of 400 Euro for an external SSD then you will be able to put at least 70'000 images or more onto that device considering you should not fill it. So for me anyway that takes many years to be there (then I will have to buy a second drive). That is why for me the high Megapixel sensors are not a real problem. If you want to save space you can still use the sensor at 36 or 18 MPix (choose in settings). With in-camera Crop-mode the camera switches automatically to the full resolution which is excellent. So there is something for every use case.

[SrMi]

When considering JPEGs, one should understand that highlight recovery and DxO's noise reduction require raw files. 

[Photoworks]

Many her talk about single images looking good.

I like to bring out one more point.

For me JPG and TIFF are delivering formats.

As a photographer I shoot ~1000 images and most days, and I need to deliver a product that is refined  and has a consistency in color and exposure of the hole shoot and sometime mach to other shoots. Editing JPG is limiting but also a nightmare to match with other images, issue of color shift and banding will come up, not to speak from the fact that editing JPG will take much longer than starting from DNG.

final word: if you need one image and the JPG is ok, you can take it, but I am sure you can do much better from the DNG. If you don't know how to edit I would suggest in investing into a learning program.

[Genoweffa]

13 hours ago, M11 for me said:

Full size DNG has between 65 and 75 MB. There might be some smaller ones and some bigger ones as the exception. But when you think of 400 Euro for an external SSD then you will be able to put at least 70'000 images or more onto that device considering you should not fill it. So for me anyway that takes many years to be there (then I will have to buy a second drive). That is why for me the high Megapixel sensors are not a real problem. If you want to save space you can still use the sensor at 36 or 18 MPix (choose in settings). With in-camera Crop-mode the camera switches automatically to the full resolution which is excellent. So there is something for every use case.

Thanks for the reply.

This is interesting, because my SL2/Q2M constantly produce raw @ 80-85MB and on line Leica specs lists max raw as 70-120MB

[Guest]

My recent holiday photos average around 74MB for 165 photos. A previous shoot of 123 photos on my Q2 averaged 86MB

There is a much greater variance in file size with the M11.

I can only assume that the M11 must be applying more effective lossless compression on the raw files

Edited January 12, 2023 by Corius

[Viv]

Why? I shoot RAW with my M11.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, Viv said:

Why? I shoot RAW with my M11.

Yes, and I shoot RAW too. Note that I wrote "Lossless" compression. No information is lost unlike with JPEGS which use "lossy" compression.

Have a look on Google.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Corius
Changed "data" to "information"

[Photoworks]

On 1/11/2023 at 4:05 AM, M11 for me said:

Full size DNG has between 65 and 75 MB. There might be some smaller ones and some bigger ones as the exception. But when you think of 400 Euro for an external SSD then you will be able to put at least 70'000 images or more onto that device considering you should not fill it. So for me anyway that takes many years to be there (then I will have to buy a second drive). That is why for me the high Megapixel sensors are not a real problem. If you want to save space you can still use the sensor at 36 or 18 MPix (choose in settings). With in-camera Crop-mode the camera switches automatically to the full resolution which is excellent. So there is something for every use case.

Interesting... I see sizes ranging from 62MB to 96MB for a DNG.

I am always amused by the calculation of the drive per images. Looks that for me it maybe it can last me 2-3 weeks

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 12, 2023 by Photoworks

[M11 for me]

Well, I wrote actually that there are some larger ones. But I am still a bit surprised to see your figures.

[Tailwagger]

On 1/9/2023 at 3:04 PM, 01af said:

...

2009: Compared to a digital image with regular 8-MP resolution, a 24-MP JPEG image contains massive information, so why use raw format?

2021: Compared to a digital image with regular 24-MP resolution, a 60-MP JPEG image contains massive information, so why use raw format?

2028: Compared to a digital image with regular 60-MP resolution, a 150-MP JPEG image contains massive information, so why use raw format?

2035: ...

And throughout all of that history or at least most of it, I've continue to be amazed as to why anyone would spend thousands on a camera only to utilize a file format that throws a significant portion of the color depth and DR away. Regardless of whether the photographer finds the end result is perfect SooC or requires significant post processing, it has never made any sense to toss away portions of the capture, let alone rely on someone else's notion in absentia as to what the final result should look like.

Personally, I expose the scene on the basis of the final image I've formed in my head and what I believe I'll need to do on the back end to achieve it. This methodology all too often requires all the latitude the camera can provide. Hence zero interest in jpg as the camera's output format. 

[SrMi]

25 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

And throughout all of that history or at least most of it, I've continue to be amazed as to why anyone would spend thousands on a camera only to utilize a file format that throws a significant portion of the color depth and DR away. Regardless of whether the photographer finds the end result is perfect SooC or requires significant post processing, it has never made any sense to toss away portions of the capture, let alone rely on someone else's notion in absentia as to what the final result should look like.

Personally, I expose the scene on the basis of the final image I've formed in my head and what I believe I'll need to do on the back end to achieve it. This methodology all too often requires all the latitude the camera can provide. Hence zero interest in jpg as the camera's output format. 

Even as an exclusive raw shooter, I don't see it this way. If someone wants to shoot JPEG with the most expensive cameras and lenses, who are we to judge them?
If you do not want or do not know how to post-process, the JPEG format works OK. Even the raw shooter may use JPEG to print or share online.
It is wrong to say that a JPEG shooter does not "deserve" to own Leica.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Even as an exclusive raw shooter, I don't see it this way. If someone wants to shoot JPEG with the most expensive cameras and lenses, who are we to judge them?
If you do not want or do not know how to post-process, the JPEG format works OK. Even the raw shooter may use JPEG to print or share online.
It is wrong to say that a JPEG shooter does not "deserve" to own Leica.

Don't put words in my mouth.  First, I never referenced Leica, there's been hundreds of discussions on every camera board on exactly this topic. Its by no means an Leica only PoV. A quick trip to a Sony, Fuji, even a Hasselblad board can find similar threads.  Second, I've said nothing judgmental.  I specifically said, "amazed" as in I don't understand why they would spend up for specs they won't take advantage of.  Folks can do whatever the hell they want, doesn't mean I have to subscribe to the logic is behind it. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Don't put words in my mouth.  First, I never referenced Leica, there's been hundreds of discussions on every camera board on exactly this topic. Its by no means an Leica only PoV. A quick trip to a Sony, Fuji, even a Hasselblad board can find similar threads.  Second, I've said nothing judgmental.  I specifically said, "amazed" as in I don't understand why they would spend up for specs they won't take advantage of.  Folks can do whatever the hell they want, doesn't mean I have to subscribe to the logic is behind it. 

We had a somewhat similar discussion on DPR's Medium Format forum. The conclusion was that it is OK for someone to jump from an iPhone to a GFX100 or X2D, if they want that. It may not be the most cost-effective step, but if they are willing to learn, why not.

 

[Tkphotography]

On 1/9/2023 at 12:50 AM, wdahab said:

The JPEG engine in the M11, imo, is very bad at anything above about 2000 or 4000 ISO. For whatever reason, it has a really difficult time handling large scale color noise, leading to JPEGs full of red and green splotches everywhere. It's especially bad when shooting people at high ISO, as they get very sickly splotchy faces. In my experience it made it unusably bad.

While that noise is still there in the RAW files, conversion by any other JPEG engine other than the in-body one is lightyears better. That's not even taking into consideration whether you play with any programs noise reduction.

IMO, the DNGs are *soooo* good on the M11 and the JPEGs are *soooo* bad, that you really have to be interested in working with Raw images on the M11.

Im amazed that no one else is talking about this color noise. I have several leica cameras but the lack of color noise reduction in jpgs are so bad that Im really considering that they might’ve forgot to put it in to begin with.. 😅 Even indoor daylight at 800 iso..

[jaapv]

It is more an issue of postprocessing skill. With DXO PureRaw, LR Enhance or Topaz Photo AI - and virtually every other present-day postprocessing software image noise is a complete non-issue at the ISO values you mention   In fact I have not seen colour noise in properly processed  ( including jpg) images for years. 
BTW image noise is not caused by ISO values but by low exposure, I.e. the amount of light hitting the sensor. ISO values are amplifying which amplifies the noise along with the relatively weak image signal. 

[lct]

On 4/8/2025 at 9:21 PM, Tkphotography said:

Im amazed that no one else is talking about this color noise. I have several leica cameras but the lack of color noise reduction in jpgs are so bad that Im really considering that they might’ve forgot to put it in to begin with.. 😅 Even indoor daylight at 800 iso..

Different experience here. I often shoot jpegs with the M11 as i don't need to bother with noise reduction on this camera. I mean up to 6400 iso more or less, far above 800 iso anyway. Just a snap indoor at 6400 iso here (link).

[jaapv]

On 4/9/2025 at 2:23 AM, jaapv said:

It is more an issue of postprocessing skill. With DXO PureRaw, LR Enhance or Topaz Photo AI - and virtually every other present-day postprocessing software image noise is a complete non-issue at the ISO values you mention   In fact I have not seen colour noise in properly processed  ( including jpg) images for years. 
BTW image noise is not caused by ISO values but by low exposure, I.e. the amount of light hitting the sensor. ISO values are amplifying which amplifies the noise along with the relatively weak image signal. 

The only explanation I can think of is that the poster is systematically underexposing severely. 

[pedaes]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The only explanation I can think of is that the poster is systematically underexposing severely. 

Well, it is their first post so one is always wary 😉

[wdahab]

On 4/8/2025 at 8:23 PM, jaapv said:

It is more an issue of postprocessing skill. With DXO PureRaw, LR Enhance or Topaz Photo AI - and virtually every other present-day postprocessing software image noise is a complete non-issue at the ISO values you mention   In fact I have not seen colour noise in properly processed  ( including jpg) images for years. 
BTW image noise is not caused by ISO values but by low exposure, I.e. the amount of light hitting the sensor. ISO values are amplifying which amplifies the noise along with the relatively weak image signal. 

Lol, this picks up on a conversation from 2 years ago? To clarify, when I shoot raw I don't have this issue with post-processing at all. So it's not underexposure or my own workflow. It's the in-camera JPEG engine that's the problem, it has massive color blotchiness in images at high ISO that don't exist when I process RAWs, at the same exposure settings, myself with Lightroom/Photomator.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

3 minutes ago, wdahab said:

Lol, this picks up on a conversation from 2 years ago? To clarify, when I shoot raw I don't have this issue with post-processing at all. So it's not underexposure or my own workflow. It's the in-camera JPEG engine that's the problem, it has massive color blotchiness in images at high ISO that don't exist when I process RAWs, at the same exposure settings, myself with Lightroom/Photomator.

Well in that case your camera is defective and I advise you to consult Leica. Not even the M8 had this problem.